Slashdot Mirror

Right, how about some facts again, rather than easy cut-and-dried witticisms?

Do you know that today foreign aid is mostly used as a tool to force poorer nations to implement the policies (e.g on energy) that the rich nations want, and that more money flows from the poor nations to the rich than the other way around?

And let's not forget cancelling the US farmer subsidies, which do cost billions too (way more in fact), so that agricultural societies in Africa and elsewhere can actually sell their food at a competitive price AND market their way out of poverty?

The fact is that on the world scene just as in Western society the rich make the rules. They draft the laws, they have the police, the army and the resources. The poor just try to survive from year to year. Yes they take advantage of the few crumbs that the rich leave on the table from time to time to make themselves feel somewhat better, but on average the poor get raped almost every time.

The West needs education too.

Best.

I see. They're "[breeding] a lot of people living in mut huts" to get a "free pass". So you suggest we go by what? Per country? The very few living in Liechtenstein will be happy to hear that. If you want to go by economic output, China looked in fact pretty bad -- they heavily rely on coal to produce energy. They still do, nowhere near as bad as they used to, but they're still about at US levels.
You can find various relevant statistics here, among other measures graphs of carbon dioxide emmissions per economic output for the G7 countries and developing asian nations.

I've been to Beijing. The air there ain't clean. I've never actually felt sick just from breathing a city's air before, and I've been to most major cities in the US and Europe.

At least they're doing something about it.

And the figures I've seen doesn't include private donations. I don't think that it's the Government's position to be giving aid out. That should be the affair of private charities.

Heck, This site dismisses private aid as "Private charity is an act of privilege, it can never be a viable alternative to State obligations,"

As a libertarian, this rankles me. I'm especially irritated that we haven't seen much improvement from all this aid.

As for Israel, they're the largest single recipient. We give out enough foreign aid that total donations to other middle-eastern countries dwarfs what we give to Israel, much less the entire world. Heck, Iraq dwarfs them now.

It's easy for Denmark to be high in their donations. Just look at how much internal aid gets passed around in the USA.

Just like giving money to a bum, how often does money to a foreign country help that country come out of a third world status?

kick China out for censoring their citizens overtly

Well, it's not that easy - as most things in politics. The point of having China in the UN is two-fold: one so we can stop them from doing things to other peoples; two so that we include them (rightfully) among the other superpowers. If you don't think China is a superpower, then you don't understand why it is so hard to force change on them.

I don't agree with what they are doing to their citizens, and in a perfect world we would put a stop to it - but it isn't as easy as it sounds. Kicking China out of the UN would have the same effect as America leaving the UN: World War III. All bets are off and the world starts looking like Europe before World War II.

But why not go into Darfur? Why not hold Saudi Arabia to the same standards? Saudi Arabia is a member of the United Nations and executes innocent people by the hundreds weekly. Why not stop all forms of tyranny everywhere? Because it isn't practical. When we (liberals) were trying to do it we were told to stop trying to save the world - now saving the world is lead policy to NeoConservatives (by their own admissions, see: BBC's The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear).

Why not start to right the wrongs at home?
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/USA .asp

Even China thinks we have problems:
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html

Of course, I'm a "crazy liberal" when I start to talk about making America better. Let's start with things we *can* change...

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsContro l/Space.asp
"The exploration and use of outer space ... shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. ... [The] prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security"
-- Prevention of an arms race in outer space, United Nations General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/55/32, January 2001. (PDF Document)

...regarding NOT militarizing space?

Don't all coporations need a charter from some government (state gov't ?)

wikipedia

The Rise of Corporations

So... it seems corporate charters of the past were limited in time and contained a "public good" clause but have neither feature today.

Why do you have a karma bonus?

The first factoid on the page you almost linked is the oft-repeated statistic that over half the world lives on less than $2 a day.

If I had to guess, I'd say that $2 a day works out to (assuming best case) $732 a year. Which "beyond" did you mean when you said that "the average third-world citizen's salary is beyond $750 a year"?

If you check out the footnote for the first factoid on that page, there are some interesting concerns raised about the $2-a-day poverty level - for instance, the poverty level in the US is $11/day, and there's information on arguments that the degree of world poverty is even more understated.

(That said, the microloan solution raised elsewhere shows great promise.)

This will go over big with the nearly 3 billion people (or about half the world's population) living on less than $2 a day.

I'm not putting down an honest effort here. I'm just suggesting there might be more important goals than trying to get everyone in the world a PC right now.

murder of a child,

Go find out which countries in the world allows deathpenalty on minors. Its a fairly interesting list.

, no seperation of church and state,

You heard your president make any references to 'GOD' or 'Christians morals' lately? His whole bloody campaign was based on religion. You may have seperation in theory, but sure as hell not in practice.

it's endless, picture yourselves in her position where your family and entire society want you dead to satisfy their fear and dogma

Well..shit happens everywhere. As far as I've understood from my Iranian friends, there are far worse countries when it comes to womens rights, generaly unrest and general safety. Iran has a an active opposition, and an active student body with a growing intellectualism. The more we alienate them with our "holier than thou" attitude and meddling in their internal affairs, the less influence we have on them.

I mean, bitching about one dead girl might be slighlty hypocretical considering we killed about 1 million people through sanctioning iraq, and a few more after the actual invasion (but they aren't important enough to actually try counting atleast. Link is only verified deaths, and is probably dwarfed by the real numbers)

We're bloody great at seeing the needle in someone elses eye, but can't see the log in our own. Everything is all about stories, and the big numbers which actually mean something are forgotten. Sometimes, I honestly think Muslim Fundamentalists have a bloody good point in wanting us exterminated(for the record I'm atheist).

Here's the basis for my morality.

John 15:19

Deut 15:11

Matt 26:11

First of all, if you need a book to tell you that you should help people in need, then don't call it morals. Secondly, almost everything you have said is wrong. The US does not come close to donating "Trillions" of dollars to anything. In 2003 The US donated 0.14% of it's GDP (about 15 billion), where France donated 0.41% (ref). Give up on the France bashing. They have given close to $30M so far, as well as provided military assistance.

"I provided the facts and figures earlier."

Which were old, dated, and just plain wrong.

Old and dated mean the same thing, so you repeat yourself. I wrote the years anyway so there was no chance for confusion. Your accusation of "just plain wrong" is simply a lie. The figures are not wrong. You just don't like the way I presented them because you agree that the US ODA figures are terrible and you want to discuss US private donations instead. Accusing my figures of being "just plain wrong" is dishonest of you.

Clearly you haven't read my other post

Actually I haven't yet, I was reading some other stuff.

And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are: Australia - $1.2 Billion [oecd.org] France - $7.3 Billion [oecd.org] US - $16.2 Billion [oecd.org]

Alright. If you want a figure fight, you've got one.

Here is a rather good article on ODA by country. You'll see USA has the stingiest "1st world" government offering with only 0.14% of GDP.

Looking at total ODA the US only beats other countries because of its huge population. The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations.

Yes, private aid is greater - apparently the US citizens are nicer than the US government - but read further into that same article. The problem with private donations is special interests.

"Private donations, especially large philanthropic donations and business givings, can be subject to political/ideological or economic end-goals and/or subject to special interest. A vivid example of this is in health issues around the world. Amazingly large donations by foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are impressive, but the underlying causes of the problems are not addressed, which require political solutions."

And further...

"As another example, Bill Gates announced in November 2002 a massive donation of $100 million to India over ten years to fight AIDS there. It was big news and very welcome by many. Yet, at the same time he made that donation, he was making another larger donation -- over $400 million, over three years -- to increase support for Microsoft's software development suite of applications and its platform, in competition with Linux and other rivals. Thomas Green, in a somewhat cynical article, questions who really benefits, saying "And being a monster MS [Microsoft] shareholder himself, a 'Big Win' in India will enrich him [Bill Gates] personally, perhaps well in excess of the $100 million he's donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here." (Emphasis is original.)"

That's one of the larger problems with private donations; they're not necessarily charitable.

Your turn.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

According to the 2004 national budget (in Norwegian) , the main strategic aid partners in 2004 were: Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Others were Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, South-Africa, Afghanistan, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam og East-Timor, Guatemala, Nicaragua and the Palestinian areas.

Agreed.

I wonder how many Ameri-bashers realize the amount of government and non-government aid the US donates. Government aid figures are easy to find. Non-government aid isn't that hard to find for the US, but apparently no other nation tracks those figures. BTW, non-government aid from the US was about 243 billion dollars last year.

Until 3 years ago the nation that gave most was Japan. They've cut back in the last few years though, and the US has given a lot of money recently to Pakistan, even though it has been selling its nuclear secrets to terrorists.

The country giving the largest proportion of aid per unit income is Norway, which gives about 6 times as much as the US per unit income.

I found some stats here if you're interested

Foreign aid is a black hole. The only reason we still bother with it is because ...well, even if it produces no tangible benefits for us, it's still the right thing to do.

But we still need aircraft carriers and interceptor missiles.

Foreign Aid, 2003: $15 Billion
Military Budget, 2004: $399 Billion

Which one of these is a black hole again?

I agree, the only rational use for "Missile Defence" is offence.

People have been going on about how much this costs and how it will never work ever since Reagan's Start Wars. Technically, missile defence is too hard to implement and too easy to defeat. So are all these military spenders really that much more stupid than Joe Public? I doubt it.

Instead, offensive domination of space makes way more sense. Don't forget the earlier Shashdot articles on the Air Force's plans for space domination http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/0 8/180222&tid=103&tid=160 with lots of nifty weapons http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/slaw/lawofwa r.htm The best defense is a good offence.

I recall the dread of the Cold War when we (as high school students) were convinced that nuclear war was inevitable. There was a reprieve when the USSR fell, but now this administration wants to bring it back. The US scorns international treaties http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsContro l/Nuclear.asp and is determined to weaponize space.

Of the three nations in Bush's "Axis of Evil", one has been invaded, and the other two have (wisely) realized the only effective deterrent is nuclear weapons. I really don't blame Iran and N. Korea. They're paranoid and they should be. The US scares me too.

The link provided only listed government international aid as a ratio to gross national product. The US, with the largest gross national product of all the countries listed, would of course have one of the lowest ratios.

This gives amounts in total dollars.

And remember this is only GOVERNMENT aid, not non-government aid: those statistics are hard to come by, escpecially since most countries don't track those numbers.

The ACTUAL number of dollars given is the ONLY number that matters to the recipient. Who cares that your country gave 10% of GNP to foreign aid when that only amounts to a small amount of ACTUAL aid?!

In fact the US military expenditure exceeds the next 3 biggest spenders combined.

It looks even worse if you look at how emissions have changed since 1990. While Western and Eastern Europe and China have reduced their levels of emissions, the US and Japan increased theirs by 13% and 12% respectively between 1990 and 2002.

The total carbon dioxide emissions from one US citizen in 1996 were 19 times the emissions of one Indian. US emissions in total are still more than double those from China. At a time when a large part of India's population does not even have access to electricity, Bush would like this country to stem its 'survival emissions', so that industrialised countries like the US can continue to have high 'luxury emissions'. This amounts to demanding a freeze on global inequity, where rich countries stay rich, and poor countries stay poor, since carbon dioxide emissions are closely linked to GDP growth.

First of all every government security agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs.

Foreign government security services didn't say much about it at all, as far as I know. But US government experts, including weapons inspectors, said that there was no way there were WMD there anymore, or even to create them.

Just look at the financial relations that exist between the US and everyone else.

Yes: a result of the dollar having become the international standard of exchange after WWII. The question is: will the US let the Euro take over that role?

If we were so anti-global we would create tarrifs on imports that duplicate the tarrifs our good face when exported to other countries. Almost every country in the world has much more severe barriers to foreign competition and foreign ownership or acquisition of companies than the US.

The US has low trade barriers in some areas (e.g., high tech) and high trade barriers others (e.g., agriculture). Those policies don't represent a general commitment to free trade, but the political influence of selected US constituencies. Some of those policies, like US (and EU) agricultural policies, can only be described as evil.

The US government sends more aid to other countries than any other country in the world. They probably (unsubstantiated) send more aid to other countries than the entire EU combined.

The US is one of the stingiest nations when it comes to foreign aid. And even those official figures are overestimates because what the US counts as "foreign aid" is often thinly disguised political or military aid, or tied to the purchase of US goods and services. So, in effect, that "foreign aid" is US corporate subsidies, which is not only bad foreign aid policy, but also in violation of fair trade principles.

Well, if you know of have a similar analysis on propoganda by the Bush administration, let's have it.

And where did you get the idea that China is the worlds largest polluter - "common knowledge" is that it is the US by a long golden chalk.

I stand corrected, I was just wandering around trying to find a reference to to worlds worst polluter and had great difficulty finding it. This material just isn't that commonly available - people not interested in it?

After great effort, I found this which contains the phrase "China is the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases, after the United States".

This is also worth a read - containing the line:
Furthermore, the U.S. for over 20 to 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, for just 4 to 5 percent of the world's population.

I strongly agree with jeffehobbs above though, progress is progress with or without the US, China (which I didn't realize to my own discredit) and India (apparently).

What matters is not the action, but the intention.

I think you should read this.

Actually, the real problem with AIDS relief is that patents make the pharmacudical industry a profiteering venture, to the point of disallowing affordable alternatives to such a degree that the Gates Foundation's donations would amount to a few drops in the bucket compared to the savings that a true free market would allow.

The kicker is that BillG is a proponent of the situation that puts AIDS care out of reach for millions so that pharmacudical companies can maintain their profits from disabling fair competition. This is a complete exploitation of the necessity for AIDS treatment made possible by our wonderful patent system.

You can read more about all this here:
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population/A IDS.asp

Now the (french?) trolls can bash me and call american's evil war mongers, but how much have other countries spent to help people in poor nations?
More than Americans. In 2003, those French donated $7bn for foreign aid, compared to our $15bn. And this is a country that has 1/5 as many people as we do. That means, per person, the French donated 2.5x as much as we did. In 2000, Japan, a country that has half our population, donated $3bn more than we did. Today, their foreign AID is less than ours, but mostly because of the weakening of the yen and our post-9/11 bribes* (eg: $600m to Pakistan). Of course, you have to take into account that much of our aid is self-serving. 1/3 of our aid budget this year consists of credits allowing foreign militaries to buy US hardware. Additionally, 1/3 (overlapping somewhat with the previous third), of our aid budget goes to propping up Israel and Egypt. Lastly, 70% of our aid budget is tied to the recipients buying services and goods from American companies.

Ironically, Americans tend to think that the federal government spends too much on foreign aid! Polls show that people think that the government spends up to 20% of the budget on aid, and believe that a fairer number would be 5%. Most don't know that the real number is less than 1%, and that 70% of that money comes right back to American companies.

See this very informative site for more information.

Now, don't get me wrong. USAid does lots of good things. They are definitely making a difference in the world. It's just that they do a lot less compared to the size of our economy than the other developed nations of the world.

I dislike the moral high ground on things like this....In order for you to live, other things must die. Period. It is impossible for you to live without causing the death of animals and plants.

True, but one can reduce the number of animals killed and the resources wasted raising them. The issue isn't "the moral high ground", it's efficient use of limited resources.

i.e. google "most contentious aspects of the text which stated that farmers" (with the quotes) and you will see that this was lifted from here This article is so long that sections may have been lifted from various places... to find them, just use google...

Here are some references:
Showing the 45% figures
In graph form

When you look up figures, how fresh they are are vital. The Iraqi and Afghan war has substantially boosted the USA military spending.

Unless the US's GDP is THAT much higher than the 46 countries above us, your facts are wrong.

The answer to that is yes. The US GDP is indeed that much higher than most of the 46 countries above you (except China).

Another possibility is that the CIA is biased (or incompetent). As their recent record in Iraq shows, their intelligences obviously isn't that great (unless you reckon they deliberately mislead the public). See the discrepency between their figures (that US spends $280B/year and the other figures $420B/year. Part of this is also probably because the Afghan, Iraqi and war on terror figures haven't made their way into the CIA factbook. Military spending in dollar figures.

Anyway, my central contention holds, that the fear by Roosevelt of the military-industrial complex has become a fact. That such spending will over time lead to China, India, Indonesia and Europe increasing their spending without necessarily buying security for anyone -- you, me, the citizens of USA or other countries. We all lose, this is MAD. (pun intended)

Japan spends about 9% of GDP on public works, compared with about 1% in the US. This is why nearly every single river and stream has been straightened and concreted. With about 99% of natural waterways now artificial, a lucrative business is emerging based around returning them to a pre-concreted state.

I do, and so do many others. The United States has an economy driven by needless militarization, a government driven by bribery based on fixing outsourcing of government military contracts, and a civil service who can retire into lucrative jobs provided by ... military and defense construction companies.

The United States spends about 20-30% of GDP on military spending, compared with a really small % in Japan. This is why nearly every single hostile regeime is now trembling in fear or already demolished.. With about 99% of the world hating the United States, a lucrative business is emerging based around returning them to a pre-hating state of brooding animosity.

Are we really so different from the Japanese? I, for one, would rather have trains speeding around at 200mph and massive engineering projects to look upon and wonder at, rather than the whole world gawking in terror at the High military spending of the United States. Good for the Japanese. Since they don't spend 420 Billion dollars on bombs and jets, they can afford to buy things that matter: trains and bridges.

Why would at a time when parity is not even close to bing an issue, why is military spending increasing?

Now keeping that rhetorical question in mind, Why would you assume that *everybody* wants to keep weapons out of space? And if not weapons, what of the support systems for weapons? GPS being a prime example. Hell, if I had a budget of 400 fricking billion dollars I would be looking at ways to launch rubber bands into space, if only to keep the wheels of the military industrial complex greased. I believe there is in space, in addition to clumsy lasers and nuclear bombs, a whole host of other military crap and more is being added all the time. I dont disagree with you per se, my view is

'because there is no reason for the military to do something, isn't a reason for them to not do it' :p

Ahoy there, Matey! Nearly half of all discretionary spending is "not that big of a budget item"? Spending more on the military than most other nations combined is "not that big of a budget item"?

But you're obviously too fucking stupid to see beyond the 30 second sound bites put out by the White House.

Asexual reproduction without a license is strictly prohibited

Biotech companies have been interested in enforced plant licenses. Monsanto developed Terminator Seed technology which would force farmers to buy new seeds every year, because they are designed to grow sterile plants. Because of global pressure by those damned commie anti-globalism activists, Monsanto has, for now, decided not to bring Terminator seeds to market. I guess they are leaving that to the government in California.

IMHO, one of the primary reasons USA is so strong in defense is because all the brains from overseas came to our country to profit from their work and flee from religious persecution.

Not the full truth. The USA is so strong in defense because:

On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined

Perhaps you'd care to name a nation that spends more on aid to other nations and their poeple than the USA does?

As percentage of GNP, US foreign aid is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world. And except for last year, Japan was actually a larger donor in absolute terms than the US. In different words, the US is rather stingy when it comes to foreign aid. And much of US foreign aid comes with lots of strings attached.

(See here.)

Oh and just spotted this too:

The total budget request for discretionary spending was $767 billion, of which 51.6% was the military budget -- $396 billion.

The next two largest items, which were education and health, getting $52bn and $49bn dollars, (6.8% and 6.4% of discretionary budget) respectively.

From here again.

On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined

To me this seems completly unjustifiable when you look at the state of health care in the US which relies on inequality and people affording their own care. How about more social security for the wost off or to move up from being 22nd on the list of industrialised nations giving foreign aid donations.

On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined

To me this seems completly unjustifiable when you look at the state of health care in the US which relies on inequality and people affording their own care. How about more social security for the wost off or to move up from being 22nd on the list of industrialised nations giving foreign aid donations.

How do you know what the US needs to spend on defense? Do you work for the NSC or Pentagon? No? I thought not. Your ignorance is appalling and you best serve society by remaining quiet than by spouting your ill-informed rhetoric.

Not so ignorant. What freedoms are the military protecting right now if you believe everyone who has something negative to say should just be quiet? Some people just amaze me.

Huge militaries are relative to huge security needs. Norway, Canada and Belgium have relatively little threatening them and very little international interests. The US has huge interests and is the single most threatened nation in the world (in terms of power). Apples and Oranges.

My point wasn't to stop all military and defense actions. Just to budget it better. I hardly think the $396,100,000,000.00 spent on military (52% of the total budget) is really as nessesary as the government would like you to believe.

Nothing is ever perfect, but what you are proposing is just as short sighted as the parent post. I don't agree with everything the Bush administration is doing, but I at least realize they have access to all the information and I do not.

You have almost all of the information at your finger tips. And blindly following the administration because "they have access to all the information and I do not" is such a sad thing to hear in this day and age I don't really want to respond to it.

Think about this: for this war, Bush and Blair privately met with all the other leaders of major UN countries. They provided reasoning and proof for it, yet only Australia (whose Free-Trade agreement has since then been accelerated) decided to support the movement. Either the US actually doesn't have any proof whatsoever, or, ummm... well I guess that was actually it. Only after Bush declared war did some smaller countries hop aboard (all without actually dedicating troops or resources to the mission, hmmm...).

Wishing americans dead is a good recipie for foe development.

I would not argue that attacking Iraq was a good idea. I would argue that now that we are there, we should support our troops.

Hussien has run his country into the ground in an oppressive dictatorship. People in the middle east protesting the US are also protesting Hussien at the same time. Very odd to see.

While I don't think it gives any country the right to attack another, I will say a few things in defense of the US.

1) The US gives more foreign aid in money, food, and medical supplies than any other country. This was true in 2001 and 2002, and previous to that it was second to japan since the early 90's. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our money to help others. 11.4 billion worth in 2003. Those are just the ODA numbers. For the real story look here

2) Whenever any country needs assistance militarily they come to the US. We have fought wars and spilled the blood of our citizens in 2 world wars, the korean war, the vietnam war, the gulf war, and several more minor conflicts. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our blood to help others.

3) Whenever a country has needed assistance to rebuild after such a war we help them do that. We pay for the war, and we pay for the rebuilding. Perhaps you call this an extension of foreign policy, but I call it our money to help others.

If it weren't for #2, all of Europe would be eating schnitzel twice over, and if it weren't for #3 Germany wouldn't be able to eat at all.

Bush's diplomatic skills are bad, but the hearts of the US population are in the right place. We do want freedom for the people in Iraq. We are sad every time we hear about another casualty on the radio in the war. Our hearts go out every time we hear about someone going hungry somewhere. The aid numbers above only reflest what the govt.
does.

This Link provides the ODA numbers, and while in contrast to the link above, does also speak of the total charitable donations of the US population, which was around 34 billion last year. That's a total of at least 45 billion dollars in aid.

But...if you want to kill us off, that's fine. Just don't come knocking if you need anything.

We just see you putting a**holes like Saddam and the Taliban in power in the first place

I'm not sure we can take "credit" for Saddam Hussein getting into power, although we can certainly take credit for providing some assistance in making Weapons of Mass Destruction(TM).

Didn't you guys back the Shah of Iran, and Khomeni, and Ferdinand Marcos and ...

Khomeini? No, I don't think so.

Carlos Castillo Armas? Yes.

Augusto Pinochet? Probably.

And the US has never used it's economic power to force other countries to revise their economies in tune with American interests instead of their own self interest. (Can we say landmine treaty boys and girls? I knew you could!)

I'm not sure how the US not signing the land mine treaty involves forcing other countries to revise their economies; that sounds more like a case of the US applying pressure for "structural adjustment" through the IMF.

From this page:

Military spending makes up more than half of the entire discretionary budget, the money that Congress and the administration can control. For FY 2003, military spending comprises 53% of all discretionary spending ($755 billion). This is an increase from the FY 2001 proportion of 48%. More money will be spent on the military next year than on all discretionary social programs combined

From that page, only 3% of that $755 is spent on "General Science, Space and Technology".

From this dandy page we learn that US Military spending ($396B) is almost 4X more than the #2 spender Russia ($60B). If you reel in your military spending youll have TONNES of money for NASA...

• some history for you.
• the US govt imprisons more of its own citizens per capita than any other country in the world, and the number of children in us prisons is on the rise. Many of these prisons would rate as "horrific", especially for kids.
• There are many documented instances of the US gassing their own people. here's just one and didn't the russians just gas their own people too? and for the record those kurds supposedly gassed by Iraq were actually gassed by Iran with US and british supplied weapons.
• actually the US does execute miltary officers by the hundreds. in fact the US executed thousands of retreating iraqi soldiers in 1991. Not onlty that but the US is guilty of political assasination, car bombing, torture, and general mayhem associated with their ongoing war of terror. I mean Nixon and Kissinger and Rumsfeld actually extended the vietnam war (95% civillian casualties) by years just to get Nixon elected.
• and finally to say the US doesn't repress free speech is too much of a joke. even google is staffed by NSA spooks. self censorship is at an all time high - wake up and smell what your are shovelling. If the press in the US were really free you'd probably know a bit more about your own evil soaked government and their clients.

- Demand regime change in the USA now.

"Described by some as Africa's first World War, the conflict in the DRC (formerly known as Zaire) has involved seven nations. There have been a number of complex reasons, including conflicts over basic resources such as water, access and control over rich minerals and other resources as well as various political agendas. This has been fueled and supported by various national and international corporations and other regimes which have an interest in the outcome of the conflict. There have been 2.5 million deaths since the outbreak of the fighting in August 1998"

Just for all those who are making the US out to look like the good guy here, try some statistics The US consistantly ranks dead last among the 22 richest nations in terms of its foreign aid as a percentage of Gross National Product. The kicker is that it is behind Italy (which is in the midst of a political crisis) and Japan (which is in the middle of a decade long recession). If anything, the US should be apologizing for not having milled the corn in the first place.

More points:

a) Half of all US foreign aid is directed towards military purposes.
b) Of course, you might think this is just the democratic process at work. Americans don't want to spend that much on foreign aid. Of course, Americans also don't know how much we actually spend on foreign aid. Since they think we spend 15%, and we actually spend less than 1%, the first poll mentioned holds no water.

Look, I'm not here to demonize America. I like it here a lot. I just want to get it out there that as far as foreign policy is concerned, the American people are in the dark, and the American government does whatever is in its best interest. While I don't suddenly expect everyone to become foreign policy gurus, and the American government to be totally self-less (it shouldn't) some steps towards a nice middle ground would be a good start.

Aaah... Here is the link correctly formatted:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp

• What else does the German gov't have to offer, anyway?

Information on all European Union internal policies and planning? Incriminating evidence of them cheating on trade deals?

The US and the EU are of comparable size in population and economy, and are in fierce competition in many areas. Things like banana trade wars might sound like a bad comedy sketch, but it's a serious multi-million dollar dispute, and there's plenty more of them out there.

So, how would you feel about Germany monitoring your financial dealings through their own version of Echelon? Wouldn't you want the NSA to protect you from that? There's a valid (though specious) counter-intelligence excuse for putting in back doors in popular products, to spy on those who might be spying on you.

Not that I'm buying that this is actually going on, but there's plenty of reasons why it might be, and why it's better to be Open than sorry.

Consider that the new generation of US warships will be running Windows for Warfare. You can damn well bet your life that the US Navy is going to want to evaluate every line of code that goes into those systems. They aren't just going to take Microsoft's word for it, especially as MS subcontract work out to third parties, some of them in countries where a little bribery would go a long way.

Similarly, no sensible government (including the US!) should be using closed binaries for critical functions.

[The following is a revision of a letter I have been distributing via email. I ought to have posted this earlier, but I lacked the courage. You can find the original on my website.]

Dear US Citizen,

I am writing to remind you to vote conscientiously tomorrow. I will also indulge in a little political activism by introducing some issues (watered stock, free trade, and others) for your consideration. As you read this message, keep in mind that I am not recommending that you vote for this or that candidate, but only that you think about what is at stake, make a choice, and vote.

I wish to bring to your attention a pattern of behavior by national governments that suggests that, in the world-wide political arena, the interests of citizens rank far below those of large corporations, and that the latter seek actively to diminish the influence of citizens on their governments' legislative activity. In some countries, citizens are even compelled by law to foot the bill for this nonsense. ;) It is worth noting that the worst consequences of this are not in the future: most US citizens feel so disenfranchised today that they either don't vote or vote for the lesser evil, and US taxpayers (citizens or not) bear the burden of unprecedented personal and national debt. If you don't vote, you will be capitulating, and the future of US politics will be that much closer to a foregone conclusion. As a citizen of the European Union and a resident of Switzerland, a very small sovereign state, I have learned that the rest of the world cannot afford apathy or carelessness on the part of registered voters in the US. You can think of this message as a plea for help.

[As you read this, please excuse the careless use of "Americans" where "US citizens" would have been correct.]

The first issue I want to discuss is the connection between corporations and public money. You may or may not be aware of the emergence of watered stock and pooling as a powerful weapons in the corporations' arsenal; for example, Microsoft and Cisco have managed to attain tax-free status by writing off stock options (and then earning some of that back when new stock is issued for the purpose of redeeming those options) and Citigroup recapitalizes and decapitalizes itself arbitrarily to achieve spectacular mergers (thus posing a great risk to the banking sector) -- right under the nose of the SEC. In a perfect world, this sort of abuse would have been reigned in already but, in our world, the possibility of relief seems remote. Let me make this plain: the watered stock write-off scheme amounts to a theft of public money and pooling needlessly endangers the stability of the economy. At the very least, insofar as stock represents a redeemable claim against a company's assets, it is a perversion of the modern economic perspective in which the stock market is allegedly as adequate a store of value as gold ever was.

Actually, said modern economic perspective was already quite perverse (in ways too numerous to mention) long before watered stock was even imagined. Such perversity is a natural consequence of the absence of an adequate standard of value, which was in turn an intended consequence of changes in policy that took place earlier in the century. Long ago, Alan Greenspan explained that the institution he heads today is a powerful instrument with which the government can confiscate part of the value of your money and, not incidentally, engage in deficit spending regularly. You might argue that calculated inflation is a small price to pay for being able to float a chronic debt and sustain a deficit as needed. You might argue that your national debt is presently unassailable because American households, which on average have a negative savings rate and face unabatable credit card debt, are financially overcommitted as it is. You might be wrong. Habitual deficit spending and the resulting chronic national indebtedness, along with the corporate welfare mechanisms that aggravate them, are to blame for your misery: the federal government uses inflation and national debt to mortgage your personal assets and your public resources, respectively, as effortlessly as a corporation uses watered stock to dilute the value of your share holdings. Think what you will of Greenspan's former support of the gold standard, but you have to admit that he was correct in predicting the practical consequences of failing to provide an adequate store of value, and in identifying the welfare state as the primary beneficiary:

Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.

What he may not have realized then is that corporate welfare is just as likely a welfare scheme as any other.

It now behooves us to ask not only how this wave of abuse can be stemmed, but also how this sort of situation can arise even under the watchful eye of our elected officials. The answer is that, in the US, the Executive and the Agencies operate with considerable autonomy; many important decisions are often made away from public scrutiny, largely or altogether, and there is a vested interest on the part of large corporations to increase the autonomy, if not the stature, of these public servants. Consider the case of MAI, the Multilateral agreement on investment -- a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Those of you who have not heard of it should at least know that it was the culmination of attempts to transfer some important powers from the popularly elected legislative bodies to the executive officials of sovereign states and to give corporations the legal standing of sovereign states. Let me take a moment to explore the brilliance of these tactics.

• When decision making forums are sheltered from public scrutiny, executive officials can serve corporate interests with impunity.
• When corporations have the same legal standing as sovereign states, large multinational corporations have power over small sovereign states -- perhaps even those in which the company is incorporated.

Surely, you can give examples of an administration negotiating treaties that would be difficult to accept for a majority of citizens and impossible to ratify for most congresses; now, try to imagine a future in which the legislature is powerless to stop unfavorable or undesirable consequences of free trade arrangements that it did not have the opportunity to approve or reject. Surely, you can name instances of a corporation getting away with practices that a majority of citizens would condemn but which the courts are powerless to stop in the absence of adequate legislation or jurisdiction; now, try to imagine a future in which a corporation undertakes legal action against sovereign states for refusing to let it set up shop, or even for having laws and regulations that hinder it, such as strict environmental standards.

"That's not a problem," you say, "because Public Citizen told us about MAI in the nick of time." That's not the point; the point is that MAI is evidence of an alarming, long-standing pattern of behavior: as Noam Chomsky has said, our governments really are, and have been for a long time, trying to undermine democracy. Consider, as further evidence, the case of Australia's MIGA, an agency that predates MAI and obviates the "need" for it.

Now, the two leading candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, look at the issue very differently, saying that free trade creates jobs, without mentioning what kind and where. Actually, Bush has even said that it is the duty of the administration to "sell" free trade (on WTO's terms, of course) to US citizens! Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has said that he wants the US to withdraw from the WTO and that we should re-examine the premise of so-called "free trade" agreements. I was going to give you a reference to Nader's website with that last statement, as WTO/NAFTA was one of the three key issues on his home page until just a few days ago, but now it is not even in the issue summaries. What could this mean? I think it means that he has pushed one of his favorite issues into the background because he needs enough votes to get federal funding for his next campaign. And this, in turn, suggests that American politicians think that the US electorate is politically comatose. You can help prove them wrong: a strong showing by Americans on election day would tell US politicians and corporations and the world that Americans are still in control of their political system. It would be a great sequel to the Battle of Seattle, with a lot less violence and just as much press coverage. Realistically, you probably cannot afford to act as resolutely as José Bové, but you can vote.

When I think about US politics, I think of the fable in which a master presents some options to his student, threatening to beat him with a cane if he chooses poorly; the essence of the problem is that the student cannot choose any of the options presented to him without risking bodily harm. (You should now take a moment to discover how the student can avoid the beating and what the moral of the story is.) You can and should vote for the presidential candidate who will most closely represent your interests, as you have more valid options than the mainstream media seem to suggest: you can vote for George W. Bush; you can vote for Al Gore; you can vote for Ralph Nader; you can vote for Harry Browne; and you can vote for some other candidate (yes, there are more) though his name may not appear on your ballot. If you cast a so-called "useful" vote, you are supporting a system in which you have a lot less influence than you otherwise might, and you might get beat with a cane. Of course, if you don't vote, you have no voice, nor will you ever, and when you and I finally get beat with a very stiff cane, no one will hear us scream. Please, vote.

Yours,

Alejandro Gómez de Argüello